Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
. more on the report from the centers of medicare and medicaid services. susan host this isçó 55-minute event. >> i'm susan denser, happy new year and welcome to our briefing on health care numbers. that is ritual as the medicare and medicaid services as well as health affairs to bring out these spending numbers every year, and we're delighted to be able to do that once more. this year we have historic numbers to help act twares and others unveil. and as you will hear and perhaps already read we had an historic slowdown in the rate of health care spending as well as rate of growth in 50 years.ç] of course the other side of the story is health care spending still grew faster than the overall economy so we're not out of our long-term projectry with the health differing to pay for the health 06 our folks.Ñi and i will turn it over to our folks from cms to present the data. you'll be hearing from micah hartman. with the office of the act tware at the centers for medicare medicaid services or cms. he works primarily on historical and age-basedçó national health care spending benefits and
, too, is an entitlement. we tend to think about social security and medicare, medicaid as being the entitlements of great concern to us. interest on the national debt is truly obligatory, it has to be paid, it's an entitlement in the strongest sense of the word. our witnesses last week suggested we need some target thes. we don't need to be out there doing ad hoc things, we need some target to shoot at, and they were suggesting we try to bring the deficit down to 3% of gdp and bring the debt or at least hold it to no more than 6% of gdp. are those reasonable goals? do you think they're too level, too high, too tight, too strict? >> so, again, mr. chairman, it's not our place at cbo to suggest what your goals should be. economists don't have any analytic basis for saying, this is the crucial point in terms of debts or deficits. it is true that as we push in this country to 60%gdp at the end of this year and beyond that over the next few years, we're moving into territory that most developed countries stay out of. we are moving into territory the that is unusual in our historical
medicare advantage, and they were referring to that because the bills in the house and senate contain massive cuts. if people that have medicare advantage and the innovative program available to millions of seniors through medicare -- that goes away. also, this business of creating massive new government-run health insurance exchanges and allowing businesses to not offer health insurance to their employees if they just pay and 8% tax to the federal government is going to create an incentive for you are going to see, by some estimates, maybe a hundred million americans could lose the health insurance they currently have with their employer. it is not because the government would make the employer dropped their health insurance regan -- health insurance. i think our remember the president's saying nothing in this bill will make you give up the insurance you have through your employer. i would say respectfully, it is awfully hard to keep the health insurance you have at your place of employment if your employer cancels it, and in this tough economy -- it is tough all over in this country
down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. let me know. i'm eager to see it. here's what i ask congress, though. don't walk away from reform. not now. not when we are so close. let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the american people. let's get it done. let's get it done. now, even if health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. it's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. so let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. at the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, america had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. by the time i took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. on top of that, the effe
, and medicare and private insurance had to pay for all this waste. all i am trying to say is that if you are going to put primary- care physicians in, you have to teach them to know what they are doing rather than to rely on specialists to get the answers. host: great, thank you. we have a la -- a lot of callers waiting. guest: what she is describing is the world. struggling with in edmonson. -- had the world we are struggling with in madison. we cannot know it all. we have been unwilling to admit that. we've been trained to get the idea that it is all going to be in our head, and we have not developed the systems in the place that can change that. it is why i ended up writing on something as mundane as developing a checklist across madison. we look at the aviation world and how they handle themselves, the skyscraper world, and we found the the first principle of successful conditions of complexity is for experts to admit to themselves that they are fallible, that they will fail at times, it will not remember everything, and then to build in those standards of practice, the checks on the
taxes and to reduce medicare outlays so that the sandwich that is produced, spending increases and revenue sources, as far as the cbo's rules are concerned that they have to cost out to develop a whole. they tell you what the individual components are, but the headline that comes out is that the legislation as a whole will not add a dime to the national debt indeed will reduce the national debt. but i wonder if anybody really believes that medicare outlays are going to be reduced by $500 billion over the next several years. after all, while getting ready to enact that provision, congress and of course that doesn't start for a few years, congress passed grade now been repealing previous legislation, which would have cut medicare payments to physicians by more than $200 billion. finally there's the issue of increasing health care costs. i think the obama administration and peter or his bag in particular have correctly identified increase in health care costs as a major problem for families, for businesses and for the fiscal viability of medicare. and we know that the key cause of
of the volume of potential medicare recipients or poverty level or something involving health care in nebraska that was different, then that would be a different story on the constitutionality. that is what many states in the national legislation are not alter the say because there are distinctions and many times there is horse trading that goes on as we all know. there's always a reason given buried there is no reason given here except for the one i have recited and that is one we see as unconstitutional and is likely seen as many as a symbol of the excess as of the culture of corruption and excessive spending and fiscal irresponsibility in the congress. that is not addressed in this letter. what this letter addresses is the constitutionality of that one provision after we wrote the letter, the next day which was thursday, december 31, i received a telephone call from senator gramm saying that he had received a telephone call from senator ben nelson asking him to call the dogs of. senator graham suggested to senator nelson that he call me. he called me and asked what he could do to assure us
. we do not need what is being pushed in washington on massachusetts, spending $500 million on medicare? we know we need to reform and that is something we're going to be doing very shortly. to think that we need of one size fits all plan from congress, coming down here and hurting what we have? that is one of the differences between martha coakley and i. at a time when we just do not needed. i would propose going and allowing states to do this individually with the government incentivizing it. we can export what we have done and show them how to do it. i am looking forward to be the party -- the 41st vote and get that plan back to the drawing board. >> thank you for hosting us here this evening. i would be proud to be the 60th vote to make sure that we need health care reform that was so badly need. we have taken the lead here in massachusetts, and now we are attacking the cost to provide competition and transparency to bring the costs down. we spent $2.60 trillion on health care in this country. we do not get our money. we do not have transparent terry -- transparency in competition.
talk to oncologist today and cardiologists and ob/gyn costs and see how medicare is already rationing health care for women in this country. it is against the law. and they're doing it. markets work and we can either embrace them and say they're not going to be perfect -- no market is perfect -- which means that some people will lose. but look at medicaid. we have 17 million people in this country who are eligible for medicaid and are not signed up. that is our answer. that is what will happen to have the people under this bill. who do we have next? back over here. let's go back there. >> keith jenkins. >> i know keith and jenkins. i grew up down the street from him. >> that is right. what is the status of the government employees? and if they kicked it out, what is the argument? >> i have the amendment added in the committee, barely, by one vote. they refused to allow that amendment on the senate floor. first of all, it is not a cute amendment. it is common sense. if the members of congress are in it, it will be ok for everybody else. ñrthere might to take care of themselves. they r
and home care agencies accountable for the medicare regulations and the conditions of participation and that say that you must have a discharge plan in place, you must do this, you must do that. when i talk about having a providers, they looked at me and laughed. poor child, you do not understand. we do not have time to do that. that is regulations. why do we not make providers more accountable to do that? they just think it is not important. >> i can do a soap box, too. i wanted to say that i think the next policy step is the community choice act. i think the class act is good. it will mean that middle-class people will be encouraged to be prepared to take care of their long-term care needs or at least have been subsidized at some point in the future. as i said, half of the population need long-term care services lives in or near poverty. i do not think that population is very likely to pay into the program. in any case, a lot of people need services now. as long as the states have optional and not required home and community-based services, they will do what is happening in califo
medicare! it will destroy jobs! and run our nation deeper into debt! that's not anything to clap about because it's not in the interest of our state. it's nothing to clap about. it's not in the interest of our state, in our country. and we can do better! [cheers and applause] [chanting "yes, we can"] you know, when i traveled throughout the state, i've had a lot of fun. you guys are all having fun. [cheers and applause] so thank you. thank you. we have more of a show coming for you. so we are very excited. but when i'm in washington, i will work in the senate with the democrats and republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. no more closed-door meetings, backroom deals. [cheers and applause] backroom deals with an out-of-touch party leadership. no more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with the special interests and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay. in health care we need to start fresh! we need to start fresh, work together to do the job right. and i hate to sound repettive, but once again we can do better! i will work in the senate t
think, in its rightful place, alongside social security, medicare and now health care for all americans. any of my colleagues wish to add? any question? >> madam speaker, as you know, a number of moderates said that the senate legislation can't change too much and still get 60 votes in the senate. so what is is it critical for members to see? >> we want our final product, as i'm sure everyone in the house and senate would agree to ensure affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance company as it provides accessibility by lowering costs for every -- at every stage. those are the standards that we have which i think are shared in the house and in the senate. >> the senate should know -- [inaudible] >> we need 218. >> madam speaker -- [inaudible] >> the fact is the public option -- i prefer to call it the public's option, an option for the public to hold the insurance companies accountable and to increase competition. there are other ways to do that. and we look forward to having those discussions as we reconcile the bill. but unless we hold the insurance companies
, it appears that their cost per patient as compared to medicare is about two-thirds, all right? this is a triple winner. open up the va to vets who can use their medicare entitlement. not only that, open it up to their wives. let them buy into the system. it not only makes clinical sense but but an 80-year-old veterans has got comorbidity and they both will have to learn to take care of each other but it makes financial sense because everybody you get off medicare to the va you saved maybe about a third. and patient satisfaction is incredibly high. so that's my case for what we ought to do, not just abouthxz agent orange situation but getting our veterans right in general. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you, everyone for your remarks. i want to open it up to questions in a minute but i want to ask a few myself.g6v and the first is that it seems like both in vietnam and in the united states -- this is sort of the theme that kind of emerged as we were doing our research and editing the package, what you run into is the limits of science when trying to craft public policy ei
spending on social security, medicare and medicaid are rising relative to the economy because the aging population and rising health care costs. discretionary spending is declining as a share of gdp over the period. crucially dependent on the baseline assumption of appropriations will increase only with inflation and more rapidly as they have with most of the past several decades. on top of that then there is the effect of the cyclical recovery as the economy improves the spending related to benefit programs will decline, tax revenue will rise, the effects also on top of that it affects the legislation so the stimulus package spending will wane and the tax increases in tax rates scheduled to occur under the current law as to those one, 2003 tax cuts expire will push up revenues considerably. all of those forces are at work throughout the production. i think basically what you are seeing in the first set of figures is declines in the deficit due to the cyclical recovery and increasing taxes as earlier tax cuts expire, and what you will see later, when you see over time is basically the g
that doctors treating medicare patients knew what they'd be getting years out so that medicare would have a stability that it needs. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. and i would say again, somehow in the gentleman's memory of these past years there is something that's left out and that is the -- this body and congress. because during the clinton years, the clinton years that saw prosperity, there was a republican control of congress. and they yielded tax policies that we believe could once again get us back on track. in the same way all the job losses that the gentleman continues to recite and point fingers and blame on the prior administration, if we're going to play that game, i would say that since his party has taken control of this body we've lost in this country 6.1 million jobs. as he says, none of the job losses are acceptable. there are many ways to look at these figures and who was responsible for what and could claim credit for such. but at the end of the day what we're facing right now is a situation where the american people and the small busine
talking but deliver. >> thirteen times against voting for the minimum wage. 13 times to cut medicare. he has voted for trade deals like after that send jobs overseas. he is the leader in the senate for privatizing social security. 98% voting record with george bush. so what's behind all the talk? i record that hurts pennsylvania. >> i'm bob casey and i approve this message. >> one of the argus were concerned about that he could make is that he was given for pennsylvania, that he had the seniority to bring a lot of projects on, a lot of jobs on. it took him a while to get out of that message but at the time we started running this, he had finally started talking about that. that's why he talks about delivering for pennsylvania. we wanted to say, no, here is what he is doing to regular pennsylvanians. so it's the set up with a positive and a follow through with the negative. and also reacting, anticipating where he was likely to go with the one message that was going to do him the most good. and what was going to be a tough year for him. we do a lot of work for the esc see, the democratic
. it will raise taxes, hurt medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. that is not anything to a club about. it is not in the interest of our state and our country. we can do better. [chanting "yes w2e can"] when i travel throughout the state, i've had a lot of fun. if you guys are all having fun. thank you. we have more of a show coming for you. when in washington, i will work in the senate with democrats and republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. no more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. no more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay. in health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. once again, we can do better. i will work in the senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs - and as president john f. kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cuts for businesses to create jobs, but more money in people's pockets
on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the so-called reduction in medicare -- is this information or misinformation? are they really going to reduce the amount of money in medicare to pay for this plan? also, the public option. how come they do not want to fight for that? it seems to me that it would be a good way to go. if people are insuring -- purchasing insurance, they are responsible for reading the policy and numbing their coverage. it is just like taking out a loan. if you sign on the dotted line, you are responsible because it is a contract. i think republicans are just fear-mongering, trying to kill the bill simply because of the input of lobbyists. host: thank you for the call. guest: public comment on the medicare question. the pieces in the legislation that would reduce cost under medicare are comprised of a number of components that have been discussed by legislative advisory commissions in the past, such as the medicare advisory council, which advises congress on issues of payment in medicare. issues have also been raised by the congressional b
commission that would consider our long-term debt would make adjustments to social security and medicare. i think we've got to look people in the eye and say, yes, there is really no alternative. medicare is cash-negative today. the trustees tell us it will be insolvent in eight years. social security is cash-negative today. and your report of the day before yesterday, says that it will be cash-negative every year except two for the future. you say in your report it will go cash-negative on a permanent basis in 2016. so anybody that says you don't have to make any changes to those programs, programs i strongly support -- i know i lost my parents when i was young, i got social security that help immediate go to college. so i understand its importance in people's lives. i understand the importance of medicare in people's lives. i've seen it in my own family. but the suggestion we don't have to do anything is just not being straight with people. and so i hope as this debate goes forward, we just don't fall back into the same old divide of, we can't cut this, you can't add any revenue here. i p
in charge more or less. and nothing was done about health care except for the part d medicare which me snuck through in the middle of the night. i watched it all night. i am a democrat but i listen to fox. i listen to glenn beck, hasity, o'riley, chris matthews, keith observerman. i christen to it all -- keith olbermann. i listened to it all. i didn't graduate high school. i went back and got a job and they sent me back to school. the constitution says -- i hear you saying about the constitution says this and says that. the constitution never said that you had to have firemen to take care of anybody's house to take care of a fire. the constitution never said you have to have insurance on cars. if you have a car you have to have it insured. host: james, what would you like michael steele to address? caller: why did they lose the race in maryland if they were such a great listener? guest: well, governorer lick and i did -- governor erlich and i did the unthinkable. the last republican governor before governor was speer agnew. and the people of maryland decided they wanted to take a diffe
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)